M/S. Roadpulse Empreo vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Roadpulse Empreo, obtained GST registration and set up a business for customizing imported vehicles. However, due to a lack of customers, the business could not commence operations, and consequently, no statutory returns were filed. The petitioner filed an appeal belatedly after business prospects improved, but this appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the orders of cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of their appeal before the High Court. The impugned orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent 1), the Superintendent, Central GST Bengaluru East (Respondent 2), and the Joint Commissioner, Central Appeals (Respondent 3).

Held

The Court held that if the petitioner had not commenced business and was therefore entitled to the benefit of not having achieved the threshold turnover, the second respondent (Superintendent, Central GST Bengaluru East) must reconsider all circumstances. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's registration should be reinstated, provided the bonafides asserted before the Court are established. The Court quashed the impugned orders: the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure-C) passed by Respondent 3, the order in Form GST Reg-19 dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure-B) passed by Respondent 2, and the order in Form GST REG 5 dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by Respondent 1. The proceedings were restored to the second respondent to decide on the revocation of the GST registration. The petitioner was permitted to file a certified copy of the order, and the second respondent was directed to conduct proceedings, including inspecting the premises, and communicate the decision within four weeks of receiving the certified copy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by Respondent 3 on the ground of limitation, despite the petitioner's inability to commence business and file returns, is legally sustainable? 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by Respondent 2, considering the petitioner's stated bonafides and lack of business commencement, warrants reconsideration? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they could not commence business due to a lack of customers, which led to non-filing of statutory returns. They contended that they are entitled to the benefit of the threshold turnover not being achieved as business had not started. The belated filing of the appeal was necessitated by improved business prospects, and the rejection solely on limitation grounds was unjust. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation order and the appellate order, and restoration of their GST registration. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue (Respondents 1, 2, and 3) were heard, and their arguments, if any, are not explicitly recorded in detail, other than their presence and participation in the disposal of the petition.